CalPERS strives for financial health

The U-T editorial calling CalPERS “dishonorable to its core” was irresponsible (“Fifteen years of bad faith from CalPERS,” May 3).

Nothing could be further from the truth. Statements such as this have no place in the discourse regarding pension reform. CalPERS is committed to strong governance, ethics and transparency. As part of this commitment, we welcome public input, as is the case of defining pensionable compensation, referenced in the editorial.

We have taken steps over the years to make changes to ensure the long-term sustainability of the pension fund. We are a different organization today. What hasn’t changed is our mission to protect the financial and health security of our members who serve California.

It’s time for the U-T to stop the rants and rethink the rhetoric.

Robert Udall Glazier

Deputy, External Affairs, CalPERS

Sacramento

CalPERS add

The May 4 U-T editorial deriding the CalPERS board on a split vote regarding pensionable compensation is uncalled for and continues the U-T’s agenda of blaming public employee pensions for a litany of woes and attack on middle-class jobs.

The proposed regulatory decision will provide employees asked by their employers to temporarily serve and perform more responsible duties and compensated at a higher rate count as part of working years income in calculating retirement compensation. What’s wrong with that?

With extensive retirements and movement out of the public sector by public employees, a void exists that needs to be filled in public organizations. I applaud public employees who ‘step up to the plate’ and take on more responsibility and greater workloads while public agencies do their lengthy recruitment process. Often the employee has to perform double duty; their regular position’s and the duties of the vacated position.

Earned compensation, even on a temporary basis, should be counted in retirement calculations. Many CalPERS formulas are based on a three-year average and California’s Pension Reform Bill (AB 340) excludes retirement “spiking” for unused vacation time, sick time, overtime and other one-time compensations.

The CalPERS Board’s proposed decision, up for a 45-day review period, was made in an open and public meeting. The vote was not unanimous, which means there was healthy discussion and deliberation. Deriding the CalPERS board because a minority of the board didn’t get their way is petty, manipulative and undemocratic.

Richard Scott Phillips

San Diego

Why the mishandling of Benghazi?

In response to the May 6 letter “Will new Benghazi report be worth it?”, if we truly were governed by a “transparent” administration, this “phony scandal” would have been laid to rest months ago. The investigation continues only because we have not been given the information needed for closure.

The Obama administration’s choice to continuously mishandle this tragedy begs the question: Why? One logical premise: the president had an election to win, and these deaths were inconvenient to that end. The fact that these Americans were gruesomely murdered less than 24 to 36 hours before Obama appeared at another self-promoting presidential fundraiser in Las Vegas reveals his innermost priorities and values. The administration’s obstruction, misinformation, and stalling tactics combined with the sorry fact that we live with a propagandist press that covers/ignores instead of investigates is where the “politics” began. And that, to quote the letter writer is indeed, “a disgusting tactic that serves only to keep the families suffering.” And the nation as well.